Summary: there were mistakes in the Council’s child and family assessment. The Council has accepted the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and complaint review panel. There is nothing more the Ombudsman could add.

The complaint

1. Ms M complains about the Council’s involvement following an anonymous safeguarding referral to Children’s Services. She is unhappy with the accuracy of the information recorded in a child and family assessment. Ms M complains the assessment and the subsequent child in need plan focussed on the referral and not the needs of her children. Ms M disputes the referral.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms M and information provided by the Council.
4. I invited Ms M and the Council to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Ms M has two children, B and G. Both Ms M’s children are disabled.
6. The Council received a safeguarding referral from the Police in January 2020. G had recently refused to return home.
7. At about the same time, the Council also received an anonymous safeguarding referral. I will not repeat the details here so as not to compromise Ms M’s anonymity, save to say the referral concerned G.
8. The Council held a strategy discussion the following day and decided to undertake a child and family assessment.
9. Following the assessment, the Council held a child in need meeting and issued a child in need plan.
10. Ms M complained about her dealings with Children’s Services in March 2020. Unhappy with the Council’s response, she complained to the Ombudsman. We asked the Council to respond under the statutory children’s complaints process.
11. The Council responded at all three stages of the statutory children’s complaints process. This is a formal procedure, set out in law, which councils must follow to investigate certain types of complaint. It involves:
• a written response from the Council (Stage 1);
• the appointment of an independent investigator to prepare a report (Stage 2); and, if the person making the complaint requests
• an independent panel to consider their representations (Stage 3).
12. The stage two investigation largely upheld Ms M’s complaints. If found:
• the Council had agreed to make corrections to documents when Ms M first complained, but these had not been made or sent to Ms M;
• inaccurate and incomplete information was used in the assessment, and inappropriate language was used to describe the Council’s concerns. In particular, the term ‘persistent physical violence’, taken from the Council’s ‘thresholds’ document, does not describe the family situation. This created a lack of trust in the Council;
• the ‘outcomes’ for the child in need plan were not discussed during the child in need meeting;
• the child and family assessment does not contain information from all the agencies working with the family;
• the assessment did not take account of Ms M’s dispute with a neighbour who she believes to be the source of the anonymous referral;
• the assessment did not include information about the involvement of the Special Educational Needs team, or past involvement of CAMHS;
• the Council appointed a new family support worker following the assessment, which G, who is autistic, found unsatisfactory (this complaint was not upheld). The Council did not arrange a ‘goodbye’ visit from the previous family support worker as promised (this complaint was upheld); and
• the details of the anonymous referral were not discussed with Ms M (the implication being she did not have an opportunity to respond to the allegations).
13. However, the stage two investigation did not uphold Ms M’s complaint that:
• the anonymous referral was a ‘tipping point’ which led to the child in need plan.
14. The stage three complaint review panel endorsed the findings and recommendations of the stage two investigation.
15. The Council accepted the findings and recommendations of the stage two investigation and stage three review panel. The Council apologised for its mistakes, confirmed Ms M had received copies of corrected documents and that her comments would be added to the children’s files, and offered a payment of £300. The Council also said a leaflet was being produced for families involved in children in need meetings to explain the process.
16. Ms M remained dissatisfied and complained to the Ombudsman again.
17. In particular, Ms M complained the Council had still not disclosed who made the anonymous referral or accepted that it was the anonymous referral which resulted in the ‘escalation’ of G’s case to child in need. She was unhappy the social worker had admitted using words from the Council’s ‘thresholds’ document – ‘persistent physical violence’ – which do not describe reasons for the Council’s involvement. And she was unhappy the Council’s involvement, and the child in need plan, did nothing to help her children.
18. Ms M wants the Council to ask the Police to investigate the source of the anonymous referral since she believes it could only have been made by someone with access to confidential information. She wants the Council to disclose all records relating to the case. And she wants compensation and an apology commensurate with the social worker ‘lying’ about the reasons for the Council’s involvement.

Consideration

19. When a council has investigated a complaint under the Children Act complaints process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it. We may consider whether a council has properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigator and review panel, and any remedy the Council offers.
20. The Council was concerned for the welfare of Ms M’s children. It was concerned by G’s challenging behaviour and the impact this might have on B. The Council did not, however, consider Ms M’s children to be at immediate risk of harm. It believed it could provide support to improve the relationship between Ms M and G and prevent problems getting worse. There is nothing wrong here and nothing the Ombudsman would question or criticise.
21. Ms M believes the anonymous referral, which she strongly refutes, was a ‘tipping point’ and, but for the referral, the Council would not have become involved and her children would not have had child in need plans. The Council says this is not the case. Its response suggests the referral from the Police, which preceded the anonymous referral, was the ‘tipping point’. Following the referral from the Police, the Council looked back over its records and decided it was time offer a higher level of support. Again, there is nothing wrong here and nothing the Ombudsman would question or criticise.
22. However, my reading of the stage 2 investigation suggests the Council went about its task of offering a higher level of support in a heavy-handed and ineffectual way. Instead of supporting the family, it alienated Ms M and her children and failed to properly understand their needs. The Council achieved the opposite of what it intended. This is extremely unfortunate.
23. The Council has published a ‘thresholds’ document which describes the services available for families with different levels of need. These range from ‘level 1’ (children with no additional needs), through ‘level 2’ (children with additional needs which can be met by ‘early help’ services), ‘level 3’ (children with complex or multiple needs who may require longer term help from specialist services), to ‘level 4’ (children with acute needs who are likely to suffer harm).
24. At the time of the referral, Ms M and G were receiving support at ‘level 2’ from a family support worker who had built a good relationship with them.
25. Following the assessment, the Council decided Ms M’s children had ‘level 3’ needs. This is a decision for the Council, not the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault. The Council is guided by its ‘thresholds’ document. The thresholds document says children “in respect of whom minor concerns are repeatedly expressed from one or more sources” may require support at level 3. This could apply to G, since the Police had made a number of referrals in recent years.
26. However, the assessment referred to “living in a household with persistent physical violence”. This is another of the criteria for level 3 support. The Council acknowledges this was wrong and has apologised. This error appears to have done considerable damage to the Council’s relationship with Ms M.
27. In conclusion, I find no fault in the Council’s decision to offer support at level 3, but reference to ‘persistent physical violence’ in the decision record was wrong.
28. In email correspondence with Ms M, the social worker conducting the assessment said the Council would consider ‘escalating’ the case to ‘child protection’ if Ms M did not agree to her children becoming children in need. While councils must constantly review risks to the children they support, this seems a heavy-handed approach to providing support.
29. Further, the Council accepted it should have sought information from its Special Educational Needs service about B and G’s needs, and it would have been helpful to have information about G’s previous referral to CAMHS.
30. The Council also accepted during the investigation that it should have explored the possibility of the family support worker already known to Ms M and G providing additional support rather than appointing a new family support worker.
31. Taking all of these factors into consideration, it is easy to see why Ms M should conclude the Council’s involvement was driven by the safeguarding referral and not the needs of her children. The evidence suggests she is right.
32. There is, however, little the Ombudsman can add to what has already been said. The Council has accepted the findings of a thorough and detailed investigation and will not doubt want to reflect on what went wrong. The Council’s apologies, and the small payment it offered to acknowledge Ms M’s complaint, are a satisfactory outcome.
33. Other matters
34. I cannot ask the Council to disclose the identity of the anonymous referral. I do not even know if the Council knows the person’s identity. Ms M believes the person making the anonymous referral had access to confidential information and the matter should be referred to the Police. I have seen no evidence to suggest this is the case.
35. Ms M complains about information that came to light during the complaint investigation. She wants the Council to disclose all the information it holds. Ms M can make a subject access request to the Councill and, if she is not satisfied with the response, she can seek advice from the Information Commissioner. The Information Commissioner deals with complaint about access to records.

Back to top

Final decision

36. I have completed my investigation. There were mistakes in the Council’s child and family assessment, but the Council accepted the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and complaint review panel. There is nothing more the Ombudsman could add.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman